Looking back @2021 #27: Top 10 ECJ Cases decided in 2021 – Which is your favourite?

At the end of the year, people like rankings whether it is about most popular soccer player or politician, your favourite movie or song, … We are particularly interested in your favourite ECJ Cases decided in 2021.

This year the winner is C-812/19 (Danske Bank) dealing with the discussion Head Office and Branches.
Fixed Establishments discussions remain popular, C-931/19 (Titanium) wins the silver medal.
The third place for C-80/20 (Wilo Salmson France) confirms the interest in the conditions of the Right to Deduct VAT.

Which ECJ case is your favourite?

Top 10 ECJ Cases decided in 2021

Top 10 ECJ Cases decided in 2021 – Extract of the decision of the ECJ

C-812/19 Danske Bank

Article 9 (1) and Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of value added tax (VAT), the main establishment of a company, located in a Member State and forming part of a VAT group established on the basis of this article 11, and the branch of this company, established in another Member State, must be considered as separate taxable person when that main establishment provides the said branch with services for which it charges it

C-931/19 Titanium

A property which is let in a Member State, in the circumstance where the owner of that property does not have his or her own staff to perform services relating to the letting does not constitute a fixed establishment within the meaning of Article 43 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and of Articles 44 and 45 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008.

C-80/20 Wilo Salmson France

1) within the meaning of directive 2006/112, as amended by directive 2010/45, relating to the purchase of the goods concerned. It is only if a document is vitiated by defects such as to deprive the national tax administration of the data necessary to base a request for reimbursement that it is possible to consider that such a document does not constitute an “invoice”, within the meaning of directive 2006/112, as amended by directive 2010/45.2) Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, as well as Article 14 (1) (a), first hypothesis, of Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted in the sense that they oppose a request for a refund of value added tax (VAT) relating to a given refund period from being rejected on the sole ground that this VAT has become payable during the course of the period. ” a previous repayment period, when it was only invoiced during this given period.3) Articles 167 to 171 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/45, as well as Directive 2008/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral cancellation of an invoice by a supplier, subsequent to the adoption by the Member State of the reimbursement of a decision rejecting the request for reimbursement of value added tax (VAT) which was based on it, and whereas this decision has already become final , followed by the issue by this supplier, during a subsequent reimbursement period, of a new invoice for the same deliveries, without these being called into question, has no impact on the existence the right to reimbursement of VAT which has already been exercised nor over the period for which it must be exercised.

C-501/19 UCMR – ADA

Art. 2, Paragraph 1, Letter c of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of November 28, 2006 on the common VAT system in the version amended by Council Directive 2010/88 / EU of December 7, 2010 is no longer applicable to interpret that a holder of copyrights to musical works provides a paid service to an organizer of performances as an end user if the latter is collected against payment of remuneration by a designated collecting society – acting in its own name but for the account of the rights holder – that is not exclusive license to reproduce these works to the public.2. Art. 28 of Directive 2006/112 / EC in the version amended by Directive 2010/88 is to be interpreted as meaning that a collecting society that collects remuneration in its own name, but for the account of the owners of copyrights in musical works, which these in return for are entitled to the permission to publicly reproduce their protected works, act as a “taxpayer” within the meaning of this provision and are therefore to be treated as if they had received this service from the rights holders and then provided them to the end users themselves. In such a case, the collecting society is obliged to issue the end user with invoices in their name, in which the remuneration collected by him, including VAT, is shown. For their part, the rights holders are obliged.

C-108/19 Krakvet

Article 33 of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of goods sold by means of a website by a supplier established in one Member State to buyers located in another Member State, when, for the purpose of the delivery of these goods, these buyers, in accordance with the shipping options offered by this supplier, choose a company suggestedthrough this site with which they conclude a contract distinct from that binding them to said supplier for the purchase of said goods, the latter must be considered as being transported “by the supplier or on his behalf”, within the meaning of this article 33, when the The role of the same supplier is paramount as regards the initiative and the organization of the essential stages of the transport of the same goods, which is for the referring court to verify, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the main dispute.

C-802/19 Firma Z

90 para. 1 of the Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of November 28, 2006 on the common VAT system is to be interpreted as meaning that a pharmacy established in a member state is not entitled to reduce its tax base if it supplies pharmaceutical products as in makes intra-Community deliveries exempt from VAT in this Member State to a statutory health insurance company based in another Member State and grants a discount to the persons insured with this health insurance company.

C-907/19 Q-GmbH

135 (1) (a) of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of November 28, 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in the provision of services provided by a taxable person an insurance product to an insurance company and, as an ancillary service, the brokerage of this product for the account of this company and the administration of the insurance contracts concluded does not apply, provided that the referring court classifies these services as a single service with regard to VAT.

C-703/19 Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Katowicach J.K.

Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, read in conjunction with point 12a of Annex III to that directive and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 implementing Directive 2006/112, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘restaurant and catering services’ includes the supply of food accompanied by sufficient support services intended to enable the immediate consumption of that food by the end customer, which is a matter for the national court to determine. Where the end customer chooses not to benefit from the material and human resources made available by the taxable person to accompany the consumption of the food supplied, it must be concluded that no support services accompany the supply of that food.

C-324/20 Finanzamt B

Article 64(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a service supplied on a single occasion remunerated by way of instalment payments does not fall within the scope of that provision.2. Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an agreement on payment in instalments, the fact that an instalment of the remuneration has not been paid before its term cannot be regarded as non-payment of the price, within the meaning of that provision, and, as a result, cannot lead to a reduction of the taxable amount.

C-895/19 A.

Articles 167 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of November 28, 2006 on the common VAT system in the version amended by Council Directive 2010/45 / EU of July 13, 2010 are to be interpreted as meaning that they are a national regulation, according to which the exercise of the right to deduct the VAT due on an intra-Community acquisition in the same tax period as that in which the VAT is to be paid is made dependent on the VAT owed being registered in the tax return, which is submitted within a period three months from the end of the month in which the tax liability for the purchase of the goods arose.

Check also the previous articles on ”Looking back @2021”

ECJ (European Court of Justice)

Looking back @2021 #27: Top 10 ECJ Cases decided in 2021 – Which is your favourite?

Advertisements:

Contact:

Support & Info

Sign up for our newsletter